Software

Subscribe to Software via RSS

In early February 2020, before most of us were truly aware of the implications of COVID-19, a well-respected IT consulting group predicted a $4.3 trillion global spend on information technology in 2020. Drivers of the projected activity included cybersecurity, outdated infrastructure, mobile accessibility needs, cloud and SaaS transitions, and on-premises technology requirements.  In late 2019, another well-respected consulting group had predicted that, in 2020, “[t]here will be increasing opportunities for technology vendors and service providers to grow their businesses, and for technology buyers to innovate and upgrade their infrastructure, software, and services.” In fact, as 2020 began, many deals for technology development, implementation and related services were signed and technology providers, consultants and related service providers (collectively referred to in this post as “vendors”) and their customers were busy building, implementing and testing new systems.

Then came COVID-19. Most people in the United States and in many other parts of the world are now working from home. Capital markets are volatile. The global economy came to a screeching halt and recessions are forecast.  As a result of these and other factors, many deals that were humming along nicely are now facing significant and unanticipated challenges. For example:

  • In many cases, neither the vendor nor the customer community is “in the office.” While it is not uncommon for software developers to work remotely, many important aspects of a complex implementation – e.g., hardware installation, software testing and user training – are most effective when done on site. Obviously, given the work-from-home and no-travel environment that we are in, this is not possible.
  • Key individuals from both the vendor and customer community may be less available, either due to their own illnesses or due to pressing family issues or other concerns related to the pandemic.
  • Some customers may experience significant and unanticipated financial distress, and as a result, the payment obligations associated with the initiative may become particularly burdensome for them. Vendors may also be facing similar financial distress.
  • Due to the downturn in the business climate resulting from the pandemic, the business volume assumptions on which the ongoing initiative was based may no longer be realistic.

This blog post is intended to suggest a practical approach that both technology vendors and their customers might take to find amicable solutions to challenged deals.

As part of the response to the outbreak of COVID-19, many organizations are working on contingency and business continuity plans that include an all-employee “work-from-home” scenario.  If it becomes necessary to implement such a plan, all employees of the organization will access the organization’s networks and systems remotely. Unfortunately, many organizations that are testing these plans are discovering that that their remote access technologies may not be able to handle, without significant degradation in performance, the volume of activity this will generate.  Indeed, given the complex host of business applications and collaboration tools that many businesses employ, many entities may not be fully ready for their entire workforce to access their systems remotely without first checking in with their vendors and IT personnel.

This is understandable. Except for the case of those businesses that always operate “virtually” — without any fixed offices — most organizations build their remote access infrastructure (including the related telecommunications, security, videoconferencing, collaboration and other software tools that are involved in remote access) based on an assumption that only a portion of an organization’s employees will use remote access at any given point in time.  For example, contractual service level commitments (in which vendors promise certain levels of performance of their systems) often assume a simultaneous user base being a subset of all employees of the organization.  Further, SaaS-based services that are priced based on a specific number of “simultaneous users” may not anticipate all, or substantially all, of the company’s employees using the service at the same time.

Organizations should be reviewing their agreements with the myriad set of vendors that provide software related to remote access. These reviews should evaluate what commitments, if any, are included in those agreements that may be helpful in what may be this unprecedented “100% work-from-home” effort.  To the extent contractual deficiencies or other issues are identified, early engagement with vendors can be helpful.  For example, in the event service level commitments appear insufficient to meet anticipated demand, an early discussion with the vendor may result in an increased allocation of the vendor’s resources to that customer.  And while some SaaS service agreements priced by the number of simultaneous users may allow customers to exceed simultaneous user limits (with a premium true-up at a later date), others impose hard blocks on usage in excess of contract limitations.  To the extent these issues are identified in an agreement, customers are best served by engaging with the vendor in advance – to avoid premium true-ups or interference in service.

In continuing its push to enforce its terms and policies against developers that engage in unauthorized collection or scraping of user data, Facebook brought suit last month against mobile marketing and data analytics firm OneAudience LLC. (Facebook, Inc. v. OneAudience LLC, No. 20-01461 (N.D. Cal. Complaint filed Feb. 27, 2020)). Facebook alleges that OneAudience harvested Facebook users’ profile data and device data in contravention of Facebook’s terms and developer policies. OneAudience purportedly gathered this data by paying app developers to bundle OneAudience’s software development kit (SDK) into their apps and then harvesting data for those users that logged into those apps via Facebook credentials.

Licensors of software typically utilize software license agreements providing for their ownership of the licensed software and related IP, as well as restrictions barring licensees from reverse engineering the code at issue.  The scope of protection, of course, depends on the final language of the licensing agreement and disputes can arise when licensees decide to develop similar software in-house, or with a third party.  Indeed, a recent case, Ford Motor Co. v. Versata Software Inc., No. 15-10628 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 7, 2018), tackled some of these issues. 

In this long-running dispute that has been previously dubbed “The World Series of IP cases” by the presiding judge, Oracle America Inc. (“Oracle”) accuses Google Inc. (“Google”) of unauthorized use of some of its Java-related copyrights in Google’s Android software platform. Specifically, Oracle alleges that Google infringed the declaring code of certain Java API packages for use in Android, including copying the elaborate taxonomy covering 37 packages that involves multiple classes and methods.  Google had declined to obtain a license from Oracle to use the Java APIs in its platform or license the same under an open source GPL license; instead it copied the declaring code from the 37 Java API packages (over 11,000 lines of code), but wrote its own implementing code.  Google designed it this way, believing that Java application programmers would want to find the same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by the same names as used in Java.

UPDATE: On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court granted Rimini Street, Inc.’s petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Court to review part of the multi-million dollar damage award against it for costs and resolve an apparent circuit split over whether so-called “non-taxable costs” may be awarded under the Copyright Act (which allows for the recovery of “full costs”).  The question presented is: “Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs” (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.”  On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “full costs” in §505 of the Copyright Act is limited to the six categories of taxable costs as specified at 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920.

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit issued a noteworthy ruling in a dispute between an enterprise software licensor and a third-party support provider.  The case is particularly important as it addresses the common practice of using automated means to download information (in this case, software) from websites in contravention of website terms and conditions.  Also, the case examines and interprets fairly “standard” software licensing language in light of evolving business practices in the software industry. (Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., No. 16-16832 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2018)).

Last month, a New York district court refused to dismiss most of the copyright infringement claims asserted against a website operator based on an allegation that the website linked to an infringing copy of plaintiff’s software stored on a third-party’s servers. (Live Face on Web, LLC v. Biblio Holdings LLC, 2016 WL 4766344 (S.D.N.Y., September 13, 2016)).

The software at issue allows websites to display a video of a personal host to welcome online visitors, explaining the website’s products or services and, ideally, capturing the attention of the visitor and increasing the site’s “stickiness.”  A website operator/customer implements the software by embedding an HTML script tag to its website code to link the website to a copy of the software on the customer’s server or an outside server. When a user’s browser retrieves a webpage, a copy of the software is allegedly stored on the visitor’s computer in cache.